Table 3.

Randomized clinical trials evaluating the influence of face-bow transfer on prosthodontic work

Author and year	Type of study	Number of patients	Age (years)	Technique of prosthesis fabrication	Parameters evaluated	Conclusion
Thorp et al., 1978[12]	RCT	10	N/A	Recently constructed dentures were duplicated, hinge axis location and transfer using face-bow	Coincidence of CR and CO	No difference
Ellinger et al., 1979[13]	Single blinded RCT	64	<65	Group I - standard technique (no face-bow transfer) Group II - complex technique (face-bow transfer)	Coincidence of CR and CO, denture stability, denture retention and condition of supporting tissues	No difference
Nascimento et al., 2004[14]	Double-blinded RCT crossover design	5	N/A	Casts of patients duplicated and divided into two groups Group A - mounted using face-bow Group B - mounted without using facebow	Number of occlusal contacts and patient satisfaction	Better comfort, stability, and lesser stress to supporting tissue without the face-bow transfer
Kawai et al., 2005[8]	Single-blinded RCT	122	45–75	Patients were divided into two groups, each received dentures made by either T or S methods T - with facebow transfer S - without face-bow transfer	Patient satisfaction, comfort, function of the denture at 3 and 6 months following delivery measured on 100 mm VAS and visual quantitative scale	No significant difference between two groups
Heydecke et al., 2007[15]	Single-blinded RCT crossover trial	22	50–85	Each patient received 2 sets of dentures, one pair manufactured by intraoral tracing and face-bow transfer, another pair without face-bow transfer	Patient satisfaction regarding aesthetic, appearance, ability to chew, ability to speak and retention of the denture patients’ ratings recorded on VAS after 3 months of delivery	Comprehensive method of denture fabrication does not influence chewing ability and patient satisfaction
Heydecke et al., 2008[16]	Single blinded RCT crossover trial	20	50–85	Each patient received 2 sets of dentures, one pair manufactured by intraoral tracing and face-bow transfer, another pair without facebow transfer	General satisfaction, comfort, ability to speak, stability, aesthetics, ease of cleaning and ability to chew	Patients rated their general satisfaction, denture stability and aesthetic significantly better without face-bow
Vivell et al., 2009[17]	Single-blinded RCT	12	21–73	Group I - arbitrary mounting Group II - hinge axis location, face-bow transfer and mounting	Occlusal adjustments required	No difference
Kumar and d’souza 2010[18]	Single-blinded RCT	20	58–64	Single-blinded RCT Two sets of dentures for each subject, Technique I – face-bow transfer was done Technique II - without face-bow transfer	Number of occlusal contacts, time taken, aesthetics, comfort and stability	Better results without face bow balanced occlusion was provided without face-bow
Kawai et al., 2010[19]	Single-blinded RCT	122	45–75	Patients were divided into two groups, each received dentures made by either T or S methods T - with face-bow transfer S - without face-bow transfer	Production cost and clinician’s labor time	Mean total cost of fabrication of denture was significantly higher and clinician’s spent 90 min longer on clinical care with the face-bow transfers
Cunha et al., 2013[20]	Single-blinded RCT	42	46–57	Group S - patient’s receiving dentures fabricated by simplified method without using face-bow Group C - patients receiving conventionally fabricated denture by using face-bow Group DN - external comparator	Masticatory performance (colorimetric method)	Better masticatory ability without face-bow use
Omar et al., 2013[21]	Double-blinded RCT	43	35–78	Group I - omission of secondary cast fabrication Group II - omission of secondary cast and face-bow articulator mounting Group III - omission of face-bow mounting Group IV - no steps omitted (control group)	General satisfaction with new denture, ability to chew	No significant differences within groups
Vecchia et al., 2014[22]	Single-blinded RCT	42	57–74	Group C - denture were fabricated by conventional methods using face-bow Group S - dentures were fabricated by simplified method without using face-bow	Production cost, clinician’s and dental assistant’s labor time, postinsertion adjustments	Simplified method was found to be less costly for patients, more time efficient for clinicians, assistants and patients
von Stein-Lausnitz et al., 2017[23]	Double-blinded RCT	32	44–98	Group I - mean setting for the transfer of CDs into semi adjustable articulator Group II – face-bow transfer into articulator according to arbitrary hinge axis	Laboratory and clinical occlusal contact points, extent of vertical shift in relation to the number of laboratory occlusal contacts	No substantial difference by the use of arbitrary face-bow compared to mean setting
von Stein-Lausnitz et al., 2018[24]	Double-blinded RCT	32	44–98	Group I - mean setting for the transfer of CD’s into semi-adjustable articulator Group II – face-bow transfer into articulator according to arbitrary hinge axis	Oral health index, amount of physical pain, number of sore spots	Face-bow registration has no positive effect on OHRqOL
Ahlers et al., 2018[25]	RCT	N/A	N/A	Group I - operators using face-bow transfer to mount casts Group II - operators using average values to mount casts	Reliability in transfer and validity	Use of an arbitrary face-bow significantly improves transfer reliability and validity

CR: Centric relation, CO: Centric occlusion, CD: Complete denture, RCT: Randomized controlled trial, VAS: Visual analog scale, OHRqOL: Oral health-related quality of life